Limitations of the Analytic Hierarchy Process Technique with Respect to Geographically Distributed Stakeholders
The selection of appropriate requirements for product
releases can make a big difference in a product success. The selection
of requirements is done by different requirements prioritization
techniques. These techniques are based on pre-defined and
systematic steps to calculate the requirements relative weight.
Prioritization is complicated by new development settings, shifting
from traditional co-located development to geographically distributed
development. Stakeholders, connected to a project, are distributed all
over the world. These geographically distributions of stakeholders
make it hard to prioritize requirements as each stakeholder have their
own perception and expectations of the requirements in a software
project. This paper discusses limitations of the Analytical Hierarchy
Process with respect to geographically distributed stakeholders-
(GDS) prioritization of requirements. This paper also provides a
solution, in the form of a modified AHP, in order to prioritize
requirements for GDS. We will conduct two experiments in this
paper and will analyze the results in order to discuss AHP limitations
with respect to GDS. The modified AHP variant is also validated in
this paper.
[1] Daniela E. Damian , Didar Zowghi, "The impact of stakeholders-
geographical distribution on managing requirements in a multi-site
organization" University of Technology, Sydney PO Box 123, Broadway,
NSW 2007, Australia.
[2] V. Basili, "The role of controlled experiments in software engineering
research," Empirical Software Engineering Issues. Critical Assessment
and Future Directions, 2007, pp. 33-37.
[3] L. Lehtola, Providing value by prioritizing requirements throughout
product development: state of practice and suitability of prioritization
methods. Ph.D. Thesis. HUT/Departure of Computer Science, 2006.
[4] F. Moisiadis, A framework for prioritizing software requirements, Ph.D.
thesis, Macquarie University, Australia, July 2003.
[5] V.Basili et al.(Eds.), " The Role of Controlled Experiments in Software
Engineering Research, Empirical Software Engineering Issues, LNCS
4336, p33-37, 2007 ┬® Spinger Verlag Berline Heidelberg 2007Issues
[6] J.W.Creswell, " Research Design: Qualitativ, Quntative and Mixed
Method Approaches", 2nd edition, Sage Publication , 2002
[7] Liming Zhu, Aybu¨ Ke Aurum, Ian Gorton, Ross Jeffery , " Tradeoff
and Sensitivity Analysis in Software Architecture Evaluation Using
Analytic Hierarchy Process", Software Quality Journal, 13, 357-375,
2005, Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. Manufactured in The
Netherlands.
[8] Zhu Xiwang, Li Congdong, Wang Bo, Hu Xinyue, "Public Project
Evaluation From the Perspectives of the Stakeholders Satisfaction and
Social Environmental Impacts", 2008 IEEE.
[9] Betty H.C Cheng and Joanne M.Atlee," Research Directions in
Requirements Engineering", Future of Software Engineering (FOSE'07)
, ┬®2007 IEEE.
[10] Anna Perini , Filippo Ricca , Angelo Susi, "Tool-supported
requirements prioritization: Comparing the AHP and CBRank methods",
Information and Software Technology 51 (2009) 1021-1032.
[11] Andrzej Sobczak a, Daniel M. Berry," Distributed priority ranking of
strategic preliminary requirements for management information systems
in economic organizations", Information and Software Technology 49
(2007) 960-984.
[12] Daniela E. Damian Æ Didar Zowghi," RE challenges in multi-site
software development organizations", Springer-Verlag London Limited
2003.
[13] James D. Herbsleb , "Global Software Engineering:The Future of Sociotechnical
Coordination", Future of Software Engineering(FOSE'07) ,
┬®2007 IEEE.
[14] Zhu Xiwang, Li Congdong, Wang Bo, Hu Xinyue, Cheng Jiangang, "
Social And Environmental Impacts Evaluation Of Henan Tv Tower
Involving Multiple Stakeholders", IEEE Int. Conference Neural
Networks & Signal Processing Zhenjiang, China, June 8~10, 2008
[15] Helena Holmstrom, Eoin ├ô Conch├║ir, P├ñr J Ågerfalk, Brian Fitzgerald, "
Global Software Development Challenges: A Case Study on
Temporal,Geographical and Socio-Cultural Distance", IEEE
International Conference on Global Software Engineering (ICGSE'06)
┬®2006IEEE
[16] Chunhao Li ,Yonghe Sun , Yanhui Jia , Hui Li , "An Improved Ranking
Approach to AHP Alternatives Based on Variable Weights", 2008 IEEE.
[17] Daniela Carlucci, Giovanni Schiuma," Knowledge assets value creation
map Assessing knowledge assets value drivers using AHP", Expert
Systems with Applications 32 (2007) 814-821
[18] Joachim Karlsson, Claes Wohlin, Bjijrn Regnell, " An evaluation of
methods for prioritizing software requirements", Information and
Software Technology 39 (1998) 939-947
[19] Xiaoqing (Frank) Liu , Yan Sun , Chandra Sekhar Veera ,Yuji Kyoya b,
Kunio Noguchi,"Priority assessment of software process requirements
from multiple perspectives", The Journal of Systems and Software 79
(2006) 1649-1660
[20] Georgios N. Angelou 1, Anastasios A. Economides, "A compound real
option and AHP methodology for evaluating ICT business alternatives",
Telematics and Informatics 26 (2009) 353-374
[21] http://www.forensic.cc/newsletter/power-failures visited on July 5, 2010
[1] Daniela E. Damian , Didar Zowghi, "The impact of stakeholders-
geographical distribution on managing requirements in a multi-site
organization" University of Technology, Sydney PO Box 123, Broadway,
NSW 2007, Australia.
[2] V. Basili, "The role of controlled experiments in software engineering
research," Empirical Software Engineering Issues. Critical Assessment
and Future Directions, 2007, pp. 33-37.
[3] L. Lehtola, Providing value by prioritizing requirements throughout
product development: state of practice and suitability of prioritization
methods. Ph.D. Thesis. HUT/Departure of Computer Science, 2006.
[4] F. Moisiadis, A framework for prioritizing software requirements, Ph.D.
thesis, Macquarie University, Australia, July 2003.
[5] V.Basili et al.(Eds.), " The Role of Controlled Experiments in Software
Engineering Research, Empirical Software Engineering Issues, LNCS
4336, p33-37, 2007 ┬® Spinger Verlag Berline Heidelberg 2007Issues
[6] J.W.Creswell, " Research Design: Qualitativ, Quntative and Mixed
Method Approaches", 2nd edition, Sage Publication , 2002
[7] Liming Zhu, Aybu¨ Ke Aurum, Ian Gorton, Ross Jeffery , " Tradeoff
and Sensitivity Analysis in Software Architecture Evaluation Using
Analytic Hierarchy Process", Software Quality Journal, 13, 357-375,
2005, Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. Manufactured in The
Netherlands.
[8] Zhu Xiwang, Li Congdong, Wang Bo, Hu Xinyue, "Public Project
Evaluation From the Perspectives of the Stakeholders Satisfaction and
Social Environmental Impacts", 2008 IEEE.
[9] Betty H.C Cheng and Joanne M.Atlee," Research Directions in
Requirements Engineering", Future of Software Engineering (FOSE'07)
, ┬®2007 IEEE.
[10] Anna Perini , Filippo Ricca , Angelo Susi, "Tool-supported
requirements prioritization: Comparing the AHP and CBRank methods",
Information and Software Technology 51 (2009) 1021-1032.
[11] Andrzej Sobczak a, Daniel M. Berry," Distributed priority ranking of
strategic preliminary requirements for management information systems
in economic organizations", Information and Software Technology 49
(2007) 960-984.
[12] Daniela E. Damian Æ Didar Zowghi," RE challenges in multi-site
software development organizations", Springer-Verlag London Limited
2003.
[13] James D. Herbsleb , "Global Software Engineering:The Future of Sociotechnical
Coordination", Future of Software Engineering(FOSE'07) ,
┬®2007 IEEE.
[14] Zhu Xiwang, Li Congdong, Wang Bo, Hu Xinyue, Cheng Jiangang, "
Social And Environmental Impacts Evaluation Of Henan Tv Tower
Involving Multiple Stakeholders", IEEE Int. Conference Neural
Networks & Signal Processing Zhenjiang, China, June 8~10, 2008
[15] Helena Holmstrom, Eoin ├ô Conch├║ir, P├ñr J Ågerfalk, Brian Fitzgerald, "
Global Software Development Challenges: A Case Study on
Temporal,Geographical and Socio-Cultural Distance", IEEE
International Conference on Global Software Engineering (ICGSE'06)
┬®2006IEEE
[16] Chunhao Li ,Yonghe Sun , Yanhui Jia , Hui Li , "An Improved Ranking
Approach to AHP Alternatives Based on Variable Weights", 2008 IEEE.
[17] Daniela Carlucci, Giovanni Schiuma," Knowledge assets value creation
map Assessing knowledge assets value drivers using AHP", Expert
Systems with Applications 32 (2007) 814-821
[18] Joachim Karlsson, Claes Wohlin, Bjijrn Regnell, " An evaluation of
methods for prioritizing software requirements", Information and
Software Technology 39 (1998) 939-947
[19] Xiaoqing (Frank) Liu , Yan Sun , Chandra Sekhar Veera ,Yuji Kyoya b,
Kunio Noguchi,"Priority assessment of software process requirements
from multiple perspectives", The Journal of Systems and Software 79
(2006) 1649-1660
[20] Georgios N. Angelou 1, Anastasios A. Economides, "A compound real
option and AHP methodology for evaluating ICT business alternatives",
Telematics and Informatics 26 (2009) 353-374
[21] http://www.forensic.cc/newsletter/power-failures visited on July 5, 2010
@article{"International Journal of Information, Control and Computer Sciences:57855", author = "Azeem Ahmad and Magnus Goransson and Aamir Shahzad", title = "Limitations of the Analytic Hierarchy Process Technique with Respect to Geographically Distributed Stakeholders", abstract = "The selection of appropriate requirements for product
releases can make a big difference in a product success. The selection
of requirements is done by different requirements prioritization
techniques. These techniques are based on pre-defined and
systematic steps to calculate the requirements relative weight.
Prioritization is complicated by new development settings, shifting
from traditional co-located development to geographically distributed
development. Stakeholders, connected to a project, are distributed all
over the world. These geographically distributions of stakeholders
make it hard to prioritize requirements as each stakeholder have their
own perception and expectations of the requirements in a software
project. This paper discusses limitations of the Analytical Hierarchy
Process with respect to geographically distributed stakeholders-
(GDS) prioritization of requirements. This paper also provides a
solution, in the form of a modified AHP, in order to prioritize
requirements for GDS. We will conduct two experiments in this
paper and will analyze the results in order to discuss AHP limitations
with respect to GDS. The modified AHP variant is also validated in
this paper.", keywords = "Requirements Prioritization, GeographicallyDistributed Stakeholders, AHP, Modified AHP.", volume = "4", number = "9", pages = "1431-6", }
